Talk:Link Joker/@comment-20669973-20140423170726/@comment-24699797-20140425194034
Rather than being made better, it needs to revisit the basic concepts it should be designed to, so it can be properly designed from square one. The sequence of events that I described in my last post is flawed on a basic level, in that the restand and Lock should not both occur due to the initial attack not hitting for the reasons I stated. The quick answer is that the skillset I posted earlier is closer to a good starting point, and I also stated several goals the effect should meet to not conflict against itself to create an overly punishing effect that heavily combines offense with defense in a single action. However, it's only a starting point, and those goals aren't the only possible set of rules a successful skillset could follow, so for any of that to actually be helpful, you need to know the underlying reasoning. What are "restand on missed attack" skills purposed for? Late game, allowing you one more attack with which to finish your opponent, or to reduce gross card advantage in the game overall enough to force the game to end soon. The intention is to finish the game now. This means that as a risk for its use, discard costs should be used to penalise the user of the skill defensively. If this play falls short, that should be the opponent's chance to counterattack. This is the basic framework for this type of effect. What clan are we using? Link Joker, the heavy defense clan that steadily attacks while preventing their opponent from doing the same back to them. Link Joker does not win games with huge attacks, they win over multiple turns by choking the opponents options to build a lead. Obviously, this directly contradicts the idea of a restanding Vanguard, so what this means is that the advent of a restanding Vanguard on the field for Link Joker should more or less signal the end of their defensive play as long as that Vanguard remains in play. A restanding Vanguard should be a switch for defense to offensive, which means that Locks should not occur'' because of'' or as part of the restand skill. Locking should be involved, because it's the clan's theme, but restanding Vanguard should not by itself facilitate defensive Locking. Given this, the obvious method of involving Locking is by making the condition for the restand skill dependent on it. In my example, I loosened this requirement a little bit as a starting point, changing it from "if two or more of your opponent's units are Locked" to "if your opponent has three or less rear-guards" (for skills that count rear-guards, Locked units are not counted). Also in my example, its secondary effect plays off Locking your opponents units by powering the card up by a stage of guard for each Locked unit. This makes the card stronger the more effectively you use the clan; it's a win-more effect that helps you end a game you're already in reach of ending, but is less effective for turning around a game in which you haven't set up properly. Because it provides a second Twin Drive, you might be able to Crit with it, but the focus of Power gain on a restanding vanguard is to force just one more hit through for one last damage, and taking your opponent comfortably to five damage before a Final Turn should be well within possibility for Link Joker's defense. This isn't the only possible secondary effect, but it's one possible fitting reward for correctly playing the clan's intended play pattern, while maintaining some usablility otherwise. As for the cost of the restand skill, in my example, this was a starting point. The cost should probably be higher, but discarding at least two cards, plus another cost is the basic cost for a restanding Vanguard, to negate the raw card advantage from the double Twin Drive. It should be refined upon, but the basic concept the additional costs of the card should follow if that its cost should accomodate for the costs of other cards, and in Link Joker, this means taking Counter Blast usage into consideration. In additional, Soul Blast costs may be used if it is decided this card should not be run alongside Chaos Breaker Dragon, as the two cards would then compete heavily for resources. In my example, an additional skill was present which allowed the restanding Vanguard to Lock a front row rear-guard for CB1 & discard 1, but only once per turn. Front row Locking is still defensive, as it Locks down the column and forms part of a triangle Lock, but it does not have the option of Locking the Vanguard booster and will allow an Interceptor to be targeted, making it, on its own, a relatively offensive Lock. The cost for a single Lock is also heavy, competing for Counter Blast and reducing the player's defenses with a discard (the latter of which feeds into the risk pattern which is associated with restanding Vanguards, as mentioned earlier). Looking at it objectively, purely from the view that the Riding of a Link Joker restanding Vanguard should come with the risk of ending their defensive play, the restanding vanguard should probably not be allowed to Lock on its own. However, it's not not an option, as a single card Lock is a much less complex problem than the skillset that was proposed in your original post. Allowing it to lock might conflict with ending defensive play, but it does feed into the goal of meeting the restand skill's conditions, and it is unsustainable when it has a discard cost. With this as a starting point, alternatives can be considered, such as making it an AUTO skills which Triggers when another of your unit Locks your opponents units to further restrict it, or for it not to Lock at all, simply making the potential restand a reward for correctly playing the Link Joker's setup. In the case of the latter, the secondary effect of the restand skill might have room to have more rewarding game-ending potential, such as it being normalised to a fixed Power+ and Critical+ for a specified minimum of opposing units Locked. Overall, this makes the goals the card presents the player using it very clear: meet the activation conditions, and make sure you end the game this turn, otherwise your opponent can take advantage of your failure. It also clarifies the opponent's goal back to being just their survival weighed against conserving cards they need for their counterattack, but with the ever-present Link Joker Lock threat to deal with regardless of their choices, as opposed to that threat occurring because of their choices. With this, the remaining goals become: balance costs so the Link Joker player is put at risk in the event of failure, and to minimise Locking present on the counterattack turn to facilitate the "turning off" of defensive play potential.